OAK  ST.  HDSF 


To  ascertain  the  value  of  anything  ask  one  who  knows ;  his 
answer  will  he  what  he  thinks  it  worth ,  based  upon  his  thinking  that 
he  knows  what  others  think  it  worth. 

— W.  A.  SOMERS 

ANALYSIS 

of 

The  Chicago  Assessors’  Plan  of 
Computing  Site  Values 

and 

Comparison  thereof  with  the  methods  of  the 

Somers  Unit  System  of  Realty  Valuation 

Together  with 

A  Critical  Examination  of  the  Application  of 
the  Two  Methods  of  Site  Value  Computation 
as  applied  to  the  Chicago  Block  bounded  by 
State  and  Adams  Streets,  Wabash  Avenue  and 
Jackson  Boulevard. 


This  report  is  made  at  the  request  of 
the  City  Club  of  Chicago  andjis 
published  by 

Manufacturers’  Appraisal  Company 

CLEVELAND,  OHIO 

FEBRUARY  1911 


ANALYSIS  of  the  Chicago  Assess¬ 
ors’  Plan  of  Computing  Site  Values,  and 
Comparison  With  the  More  Scientific 
Methods  of  the  SOMERS  UNIT  SYSTEM 
of  Realty  Valuation 


Cleveland,  Ohio,  February  4,  1911. 

City  Club  of  Chicago, 

Chicago,  Ill. 

Gentlemen: — 

It  is  acknowledged  by  all  land  valuation  experts  that  a  mathe¬ 
matical  relation  exists  between  the  values  of  two  city  sites  affected 
by  the  same  influences;  and  that  there  is  a  mathematical  relation 
between  the  values  of  any  two  portions  of  the  same  lot. 

This  principle  is  recognized  by  the  sponsors  of  both  the  Somers 
United  System  of  Realty  Valuation  and  the  Chicago  Plan  of  comput¬ 
ing  site  values. 

This  report,  which  is  submitted  to  the  City  Club  of  Chicago  as 
the  result  of  an  investigation  of  the  plan  of  measuring  the  value 
of  land  used  by  the  Chicago  Board  of  Assessors  and  the  Board  of 
Review,  shows  comparisons  between  the  theory  and  practice  of  the 
Somers  System  and  of  the  Chicago  Plan.  It  must  therefore  com¬ 
prise  a  discussion  of  the  following  questions: 

First — Does  the  Chicago  Plan  disclose  the  true  mathematical 
relations  in  the  values  of  two  lots  affected  by  the  same  influences, 
and  of  any  parts  of  the  same  lot? 

Second — Does  the  Somers  System  disclose  such  relations  more 
exactly,  and  therefore  more  scientifically  than  does  the  Chicago  Plan? 

This  report  has  been  made  by  our  experts,  in  the  hope  that  the 
members  of  the  City  Club,  and  the  property  owners  of  Chicago, 
generally,  may  be  awakened  to  an  interest  in  the  scientific  assess¬ 
ment  of  the  real  estate  of  your  entire  city  in  the  quadrennial  re¬ 
assessment  of  real  estate  to  be  made  this  year. 

During  the  past  year  we  have  made  investigations  of  assessment 
methods  and  valuations  in  about  fifty  American  cities.  So  far  as 
our  investigations  have  proceeded,  we  have  found  an  almost  complete 
lack  of  anything  approaching  a  true  system  for  measuring  values  of 
land  and  buildings  of  a  city  so  as  to  make  assessments  equitable 
and  proportional.  We  believe  that  the  Chicago  Plan,  which  is 
acknowledged  to  be  imperfect  in  some  respects,  even  by  the  experts 
of  the  assessing  departments,  more  nearly  approaches  the  dignity 
of  a  system  than  the  methods  of  any  other  American  city — excepting 
Cleveland  and  Columbus,  Ohio,  where  the  Somers  Unit  System 
has  within  the  past  year  been  put  into  operation. 

FEATURES  OF  THE  TWO  SYSTEMS. 

A  member  of  your  committee  has  kindly  furnished  us  a  descrip¬ 
tion  of  the  Chicago  Plan,  which  we  have  briefly  summarized  as 
follows : 

Values  are  stated  as  of  a  unit  foot,  said  unit  foot  being  located 
where  it  only  has  one  factor  of  value.  A  table  showing  the  value 

3 

y 35488 


of  lots  of  various  depths  as  compared  with  the  unit  value,  has  been 
constructed;  by  this  table  the  relative  value  of  interior  lots  is 
ascertained.  A  lot  100  feet  square  at  the  corner  is  figured  upon  the 
basis  of  the  higher  unit,  to  which  is  added  60  per  cent  of  the  value 
as  figured  at  the  lower  unit;  where  a  lot  is  50  feet  wide  on  the 
street  of  the  higher  unit,  five-sixths  of  the  added  value  of  the  100 
foot  lot  is  added  to  its  value  as  figured  at  the  higher  unit  value. 
A  table  has  been  worked  out  from  this  basis  showing  the  value  of 
each  front  foot  of  the  corner  either  way.  In  the  case  of  an  alley, 
five  feet  are  added  to  the  side  or  depth  of  the  lot  so  abutting,  as 
the  case  may  be,  and  the  resulting  size  of  the  lot  is  figured  in  the 
regular  way. 

The  salient  features  of  the  Somers  System  are  in  brief  as 
follows: 

Values  are  stated  as  of  a  unit  foot,  said  unit  foot  being  located 
where  it  only  has  one  factor  of  value.  A  table  based  upon  the 
Somers  curve  of  value,  showing  the  value  of  lots  of  various  depths 
as  compared  with  the  unit  value,  has  been  constructed.  This  table 
is  based  upon  careful  and  wide  investigation  as  to  the  facts  in  the 
case  of  given  depths,  say  50  feet,  100  feet  and  150  feet  deep,  and 
the  mathematical  relation  of  these  three  results  upon  every  other 
possible  depth.  This  produces  a  table  quite  different  from  a  per¬ 
centage  treatment  of  this  phase,  and  more  consistent,  one  part  with 
another. 

Corner  lots  are  valued  as  follows:  At  the  corner  to  be  computed 
is  erected  a  lot  100  feet  square,  and  this  lot  is  divided  into 

squares,  10  feet  square  each.  The  Somers  corner  lot  tables  give 
the  value  of  each  of  these  squares  for  every  conceivable  com¬ 
bination  of  values  coming  together  at  the  corner.  The  values 

given  in  these  tables  are  comparable  in  a  sense  to  a  table  of 
logarithms  or  an  interest  table.  They  are  tables  of  values,  and 
these  values  have  been  worked  out  by  Mr.  Somers,  and  are  always 
the  mathematical  effect  of  the  units  of  the  two  streets  upon  each 
10-foot  square  plot,  no  matter  where  in  the  100-foot  square  it  may 
be  located.  The  10-foot  square  plot  at  the  corner  of  the  two  streets 
is  always  the  most  valuable,  the  values  of  all  the  other  squares 
recede  in  curves  in  every  direction  from  this  corner  square,  and 
these  curves  are  always  commensurate  with  the  mathematical  effect 
of  one  unit  upon  the  other.  The  actual  lots  to  be  computed  are 

diagrammed  upon  this  imaginary  100-foot  corner,  and  the  values  of 

each  square  and  part  of  a  square  inside  the  lot  lines  are  added 
together,  thus  producing  the  value  of  each  lot,  and  apportioning  to 
each  lot  its  share  of  the  enhancement  of  value  by  reason  of  two 
streets  coming  together.  It  does  not  matter,  therefore,  in  what 
way  the  corner  is  divided  up,  as  we  have  actual  valuation  in  dollars 
for  every  part  of  it,  and  not  a  percentage  based  upon  an  arbitrarily 
selected  percentage  to  be  added.  When  the  enhancement  of  value 
does  not  reach  100  feet  in  either  direction  from  the  corner,  these 
corner  lot  tables  measure  it  only  as  far  as  it  goes.  When  the 
enhancement  of  value  runs  over  100  feet,  we  have  another  set  of 
tables,  sometimes  called  overlap  tables,  which  not  only  ascertains 
the  fact,  but  also  the  exact  place  where  the  enhancement  ceases, 
and  the  amount  that  each  foot  is  enhanced.  In  other  words,  what¬ 
ever  the  effect,  the  Somers  System  works  out  that  effect  into 
dollars.  By  mechanical  devices  these  same  corner  lot  tables  and 
over-lap  tables  may  be  applied  to  lots  at  acute  and  obtuse  corners. 
By  another  set  of  tables,  irregular  shaped  lots  are  valued  upon  the 
basis  of  the  judgment  of  the  value  of  the  unit.  By  this  same  set 

4 


of  tables,  and  when  so  used  we  call  them  over-lap  tables,  we  ascer¬ 
tain  the  exact  extent  of  the  influence  of  the  unit,  so  that  when  we 
have  a  lot  running  through  from  one  street  to  another  we  can  find 
out  exactly  where  the  influence  of  the  two  units  comes  to  a  common 
level. 

Alley  effect  is  treated  as  follows:  The  land  value  of  the  alley 
is  computed,  based  upon  the  units  controlling  its  value,  and  that 
land  value  is  pro-rated  against  every  foot  of  land  abutting  upon  the 
alley. 

THE  PRINCIPAL  DIFFERENCES  IN  THE  TWO  SYSTEMS. 

The  principal  differences  between  the  two  methods  are  as 
follows: 

1.  The  Chicago  Plan  is  applicable  only  in  the  business  center, 
and  not  in  the  residence  district.  The  Somers  System  is  applicable 
in  any  district. 

2.  The  Chicago  Plan  places  a  higher  relative  value  on  the  rear 
portion  of  a  lot  than  does  the  Somers  System. 

3.  The  Chicago  Plan  places  a  higher  value  on  the  first  few 
feet  from  the  front  than  does  the  Somers  System. 

4.  The  Chicago  Plan  places  a  lower  value  on  the  first  half  of  a 
lot  100  feet  deep  than  does  the  Somers  System. 

5.  The  Chicago  Plan  includes  in  its  depth  percentage  some  of 
the  plottage  factor;  the  Somers  System  does  not.  If  a  small  lot  is 
to  he  valued  lower  than  its  proportion  of  a  large  plot,  under  the 
Somers  System  that  difference  would  have  to  be  figured  hy  itself, 
and  for  what  it  itself  is  worth,  and  is  not  mixed  up  with  the  pro¬ 
portional  valuing  of  the  various  sizes  and  shapes.  Under  the 
Somers  System  it  is  therefore  easier  to  account  for  the  differences 
in  the  dollar  valuation  of  parcels  affected  by  the  same  influences,  as 
those  differences  are  always  traceable  to  varying  sizes,  shapes, 
alleys,  and  corners,  and  are  apparent  on  the  face  of  the  figures. 

6.  The  Chicago  Plan  assumes  that  corner  enhancement  extends 
always  exactly  100  feet  either  way  from  the  corner;  the  Somers 
System  does  not.  The  Chicago  Plan  is  too  rigid  and  too  arbitrary 
to  work  on  any  other  assumption;  the  Somers  System  is  so  flexible 
that  it  meets  every  requirement  of  corner  enhancement,  and  meas¬ 
ures  it  exactly  as  it  is. 

7.  The  Chicago  Corner  Plan  is  'based  upon  the  assumption  that 
the  lower  unit  exerts  60  per  cent  of  its  influence  upon  the  higher 
unit.  There  is  nothing  in  the  system  to  show  why  60  per  cent 
fits.  The  Somers  System  Corner  Plan  is  based  upon  the  mathe¬ 
matical  effect  of  one  unit  upon  another,  and  the  tables  that  make 
this  plan  workable  are  actual  valuation  tables  for  specific  pieces  of 
ground,  each  in  proportion  to  its  location  to  the  corner,  both  as  to 
distance,  and  as  to  direction. 

8.  The  Chicago  Plan  has  no  method  for  computing  irregular 
shapes.  The  Somers  System  has  an  exact  and  mathematical  method. 

9.  The  Chicago  Plan  has  no  method  of  showing  the  effect  of 
two  units  applied  from  opposite  directions.  By  the  Somers  System 
we  can  always  find  the  exact  spot  where  two  such  units  come 
together  at  a  level  value. 

10.  The  Chicago  Alley  Plan  is  very  defective,  and  must  work 
hardship  upon  some  properties  if  carried  out  as  described.  The 
Somers  method  is  equitable  and  exact,  and  treats  every  alley  prop¬ 
erty  owner  exactly  alike,  each  in  proportion  to  his  alley  frontage. 

5 


PROCESSES  OF  VALUATION  BY  THE  SOMERS  SYSTEM. 


There  are  five  processes  in  valuing  property  by  the  Somers 
System,  as  follows: 

First — The  use  of  the  depth  curve,  or  table  showing  the  value 
of  interior  lots  without  alleys,  as  compared  with  the  value  of  the 
unit. 

Second — The  corner  lot  tables,  by  which  the  enhanced  value  at 
or  near  corners  is  mathematically  and  equitably  distributed. 

Third — The  zone  tables,  by  which  the  value  of  irregular  shapes 
is  ascertained. 

Fourth — The  over-lap  tables,  by  which  the  effect  of  units  run¬ 
ning  in  opposite  directions  is  exactly  ascertained,  thus  making  it 
possible  to  apply  unit  values  to  lots  running  from  street  to  street, 
and  also  possible  to  ascertain  other  valuable  data  for  land  valuation. 

Fifth — Alley  valuation,  by  which  the  effect  of  alleys  may  be 
equitably  distributed. 

It  will  therefore  be  seen  that  the  Somers  System  is  most  com¬ 
prehensive  in  its  scope,  and  that  it  undertakes  to  ascertain  and 
value  every  separate  factor,  every  combination  of  factors,  and  is 
workable  in  every  part  of  every  city. 

The  Somers  System  is  based  on  the  law  of  constant  effect  of 
depth  upon  value.  It  consists  of  mathematical  formulae  and  me¬ 
chanical  devices  for  carrying  out  that  law,  so  as  to  ascertain  the 
true  proportional  values  of  city  sites. 


VARIATIONS  IN  PERCENTAGE  OF  DEPTH  TABLES. 

The  basic  difference  between  the  Chicago  Plan  and  the  Somers 
System  of  computing  land  values  is  found  in  the  variations  in  the 
tables  of  the  two  methods  showing  percentages  of  the  unit  value 
used  for  different  depths.  This  table  for  the  Chicago  Plan  is  called 
the  “Percentage  for  Depth,”  and  under  the  Somers  System  is  called 
the  “Curve  of  Value.”  That  the  Percentage  for  Depth  table  is  only 
applicable  to  inside  property  in  what  is  known  as  the  “Loop 
District”  of  Chicago,  and  is  not  applicable  to  the  residence  or  manu¬ 
facturing  district  of  that  or  any  other  city,  prevents  the  Chicago 
Plan  from  rising  to  the  plane  of  a  “system”  of  realty  valuation. 

The  Somers  System  recognizes  that  there  is  more  difference 
in  the  mathematical  relation  of  the  value  of  the  rear  part  of  a 
residence  lot  exceeding  100  feet  in  depth  when  compared  with  its 
front  portion,  than  exists  in  the  mathematical  relation  of  the  value 
of  the  two  portions  of  an  ordinary-sized  lot  used  for  retail  pur¬ 
poses.  The  Chicago  Plan  recognizes  that  this  is  so  by  the  fact 
that  it  does  not  provide  for  mathematical  computation  of  any 
lots  except  ordinary  lots  in  the  business  district. 

A  true  system  ought  to  take  into  consideration  the  computation 
of  the  mathematical  differences  of  all  kinds  of  properties.  In  this 
particular  the  Somers  System  is  really  a  system  and  the  Chicago 
Plan  is  not. 

We  tabulate  following  the  differences  between  the  two  tables 
referred  to  at  a  few  of  the  important  depths,  so  that  a  better  per¬ 
spective  of  the  situation  may  be  obtained: 

6 


1  Percentage  of  Unit  Percentage  of  Value 

Depth.  Chicago  Plan.  Somers  System. 

1 .  10.99  3.10 

5 .  14.95  14.35 

10 .  19.90  25.00 

25 .  34.35  47.90 

40  .  48.80  64.00 

50 .  57.50  72.50 

75 .  79.35  88.30 

1100 .  100.00  100.00 

125.: .  119.35  109.05 

150 .  137.50  115.00 

175 .  154.35  119.14 

200 .  170.00  122.00 


It  must  be  remembered  that  these  figures  are  intended  to  show 
the  mathematical  relation  of  different  portions  of  actual  and  “going*’ 
divisions  of  property  and  are  not  “hold-up”  values  in  any  instance. 
Take  for  example  the  first  foot  from  the  front:  If  a  person  were 
to  own  a  strip  of  land  one  foot  deep  along  the  entire  frontage,  and 
if  the  land  immediately  behind  it  were  in  another’s  ownership,  there 
is  no  percentage  that  the  owner  of  that  single  foot  might  not  exact 
in  selling  to  the  owner  of  the  land  back  of  that  foot;  so  that  the 
Chicago  percentage  of  nearly  11  per  cent  would  probably  be  nearer 
the  “hold-up”  price  than  the  Somers  System  value  of  3.1  per  cent. 
But  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  proportion  of  the  value  of  the  first 
foot  from  the  front  is  nearly  11  per  cent  of  the  value  of  that  foot 
and  the  99  more  feet  behind  it.  Such  a  relation  is  abnormal,  and 
does  not  really  exist  in  Chicago  or  any  other  city. 

The  Chicago  Plan  figures  an  inside  lot  50  feet  deep  at  57.5  per 
cent  of  the  value  of  a  lot  100  feet  deep;  this  leaves  42.5  per  cent 
for  the  value  of  the  rear  half.  It  must  be  remembered  in  this  dis¬ 
cussion  that  the  only  access  that  any  of  this  land  has  is  through 
itself  to  the  street;  that  is,  there  is  no  other  influence  to  be  con¬ 
sidered  of  value,  except  what  is  obtained  through  its  own  frontage. 

In  no  other  city  do  we  find  that  the  value  of  the  rear  half  of  a 
100  foot  lot,  which  has  access  only  over  the  front  portion  of  equal 
size,  bears  any  such  relation,  and  it  has  never  been  conclusively 
proved  that  this  is  the  case  in  Chicago,  even  in  the  congested  Loop 
district.  What  has  taken  place,  evidently,  in  the  construction  of  the 

Chicago  tables,  is  an  attempt  to  combine  the  “plottage”  idea  of 

additional  value  into  the  tables  themselves,  which  would  not  be  at 
all  harmful  if  all  the  properties  were  of  an  equal  plottage,  but  does 
tend  either  to  assess  an  extra  amount  upon  the  property  owners 
who  plot  their  property  large  enough  to  be  useful  to  the  com¬ 
munity,  or  to  exempt  those  property  owners  who  keep  their 

property  in  size  too  small  for  the  economic  necessities  of  the 
community. 

There  is  no  argument  that  the  users  of  the  Somers  System 
wish  to  make  against  this  method  of  discrimination  between  prop¬ 
erty  owners;  what  we  do  contend  for  is  that  when  this  thing  is 
done  it  ought  to  be  done  separately  from  the  actual  computation 
of  land  values,  and  not  so  mixed  up  with  it  that  the  additions  for 
plottage  are  hidden  from  the  eye,  and  not  known  or  shown  as  a 
factor  to  the  computation.  The  chief  defect  in  the  Chicago  Plan, 
as  we  understand  it,  is  that  it  combines  more  than  the  mathematical 
relation  of  parts  of  the  same  lot,  and  therefore  must  work  injustice 
between  the  owners  of  various  sizes  of  property  affected  by  the 
same  influences. 


/ 


The  following  diagram  shows  the  two  curves  of  depth  value 
plotted  for  easy  comparison: 


>ER 

CE> 

TAC 

E 

_ 

A 

A 

> 

*  ? 

y 

v 

— 

,v°, 

Is 

ro 

•'  Cy 

& 

/ 

y 

f  A 

/ 

,A 

/ 

W' 

SA 

*/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

*rU 

3  A 

/ 

-PA 

/ 

/  / 

/ 

7 

F 

EEt 

DE 

EP.  1 

0  2 

0  3 

0  A 

0  5 

0  Q 

0  7 

0  0 

0  9 

0  l< 

>0  11 

0  I. 

!0  1 

50  b 

«  1 

>0  I 

0  1 

'o  1 

30  1 

10  2< 

0 

( 

:or 

AF 

AR 

AT 

IVf 

:  P 

L.0 

TTI 

NG 

OJ 

:  c 

H  1 

:a< 

;o" 

PE 

RC 

EN 

TA 

GE 

F( 

5R 

DE 

PT 

h" 

A 

ND 

T1 

IE 

SC 

ER: 

3  < 

>V5 

JTI 

■m 

"C 

U  F 

^VE 

0 

■  V 

AL 

U£ 

Fig.  1. 

By  plotting  the  Chicago  Percentage  for  Depth  table  and  Somers 
Curve  of  Value  upon  scaled  paper,  the  difference  in  principle  is  the 
more  easily  seen.  The  Chicago  line  of  value  jumps  very  sharply  for 
the  first  foot,  and  from  there  to  the  depth  of  200  feet  the  values  run 
in  almost  a  straight  line.  The  knowledge  that  we  all  have  of  receding 
values  points  out  the  fallacy  of  this  treatment.  We  cannot  see  why 
there  should  be  a  sharp  deflection  of  values  at  a  depth  of  one  foot, 
for  the  very  good  reason  that  such  an  abrupt  variation  in  land 
values  does  not  exist  anywhere.  Values  go  up  and  down  in  every 
direction  in  curves,  and  not  in  straight  lines.  The  unit  valuations 
of  any  street  in  the  loop  district  show  that  this  is  a  recognized  fact, 
when  the  whole  street  is  taken  in  perspective.  This  fact  is  also 
recognized  in  the  Chicago  curve  after  the  first  foot-  from  that  point 
to  200  feet  deep,  there  is  a  curve,  although  that  curve  is  so  slight 
as  to  be  almost  a  straight  line.  The  point  which  we  wish  to  make 
with  reference  to  the  sharp  jump  at  a  foot  of  depth  is  that  nowhere 
else  in  the  Chicago  Plan  do  we  find  any  such  treatment  of  relative 
values;  the  query  is  natural,  Why  here? 

The  direction  of  the  whole  Chicago  line  depends  upon  the  place 
where  one  locates  the  percentage  value  at  50  feet  deep.  If  it  is 

8 


located  at  a  point  practically  in  a  straight  line  between  1  foot  deep 
and  100  feet  deep,  the  line  must  run  on  indefinitely  for  any  depth, 
thus  producing  high  values  for  the  rear  end  of  very  deep  lots. 

This  brings  us  to  the  discussion  of  the  value  of  rear  ends  of 
lots  as  compared  with  front  ends.  If  these  lots  were  all  of  one 
depth,  there  would  be  little  to  the  discussion,  but  it  is  the  attempt 
to  work  out  a  plan  that  will  fit  all  conditions  that  produces  the 
necessity.  Let  us  compare  two  pieces  of  ground  fronting  side  by 
side  on  a  street  having  a  $10,000  unit.  (Fig.  2.)  These  lots  are  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  both  located  far  enough  away  from  corners  to  have  no 
corner  influence,  and  neither  has  an  alley.  They  are  exactly  alike 
except  as  to  width,  one  being  20  feet  wide  and  the  other  200  feet 
wide,  both  being  200  feet  deep.  It  is  manifestly  apparent  that  the 
wide  lot  on  a  street  with  so  high  a  unit  value  is  more  than  ten 
times  as  useful  to  the  community  as  the  one  20  feet  wide.  This  is 
so  because  where  land  is  used  so  intensively  as  to  be  worth  $10,000 


• 

TOTAL  VALUE. 

TOTAL  VALUE. 

(c)#  3,  4-00,000 

(c)  $  340 .0  00 

o 

(sj  2,4-40,  000 

(Sj  2-44,000 

value  REAR  HALF. 

/ 

^ VALUE  REAR  HALF, 

(Cj#  1 ,400. '000 

ip)  4  140,000 

4 

4 

o 

o 

o 

o 

(S)  44,0  00 

200 

20 

UNIT^I  0,000 

STREET 


Fig.  2. 

a  unit  foot,  a  larger  plot  than  20  feet  wide  is  desired  by  most  busi¬ 
ness  men.  This  necessity  for  size  is  not  land  value;  it  is  what  is 
usually  termed  “plottage”  value;  it  is  that  addition  over  and^ above 
ten  times  the  value  of  a  20-foot  wide  lot  that  the  community  is 
willing  to  pay  for  the  privilege  of  constructing  a  building  suitable 
for  the  necessities  of  the  community  at  that  point..  All  we  contend 
for  is  that  the  natural  value  of  the  large  piece  of  land,  as  land,  is 
ten  times  the  value  of  the  smaller  piece,  and  that  if  anything,  is  to 
be  added  for  plottage,  it  ought,  not  to  be  done  with  the  eyes  shut;  it 
ought  not  to  be  called  frontage  value — and  the  plottage  value,  if 
taxed  at  all,  should  be  taxed  as  a  plottage  factor,  and  not  as  value 
computed  from  a  depth  percentage. 

There  is  a  fundamental  reason  for  the  elimination  of  all  con¬ 
sideration  of  plottage  in  fixing  the  units  for  the  computation  of  land 
values.  Plottage  value  is  entirely  local  to  a  particular  spot.  The 
plottage  value,  for  instance,  of  a  tract  on  one  side  of  a  street  might 
be  10  per  cent  or  15  per  cent  or  some  other  per  cent.  Indeed,  in 
streets  most  intensively  used,  that  is,  which  have  a  high  unit  value, 
the  plottage  factor  often  differs  with  every  different  width.  It  can 
only  be  ascertained  when  treated  separately  from  the  natural  land 
value,  and  separately  as  to  each  frontage.  Our  contention  on  this 
point  is  that  the  natural  value  of  land,  irrespective  of  plottage,  ought 
to  be  ascertained  the  same  for  a  wide  frontage  as  for  a  narrow 

9 


frontage  with  the  same  depth,  and  wherever  there  is  an  added  value 
for  a  particularly  fitting  size  with  relation  to  its  frontage  value,  that 
factor  ought  to  be  valued  entirely  by  itself,  and  as  such. 

Under  the  Chicago  Plan  the  larger  lot  is  worth  $3,400,000  and 
the  smaller  lot  is  worth  $340,000;  under  the  Somers  System,  at  the 
same  100-foot  unit,  the  larger  is  worth  $2,440,000  and  the  smaller 
$244,000.  Under  the  Chicago  Plan  the  rear  half  of  the  larger  lot  is 
worth  $1,400,000,  and  under  the  Somers  System  the  rear  half  is  fig¬ 
ured  at  $440,000.  In  the  case  of  the  smaller  lot,  the  Chicago  Plan 
figures  the  whole  lot  at  $340,000,  and  its  rear  half  at  $140,000;  the 
Somers  System  computes  the  whole  lot  as  being  worth  $244,000,  and 
the  rear  half  as  being  worth  $44,000.  Under  the  Chicago  Plan  the 
rear  of  the  small  lot  is  found  to  be  over-assessed  as  compared  with 
the  value  of  the  rear  of  the  large  lot,  as  the  values  of  both  lots  ?re 
computed  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  usefulness  of  the  rear 
portion  of  the  large  lot. 

The  reverse  of  this  is  true  under  the  Somers  System.  First,  it 
is  recognized  that  the  community  really  does  produce  ten  times  as 
•much  real  land  value  in  the  rear  half  of  the  large  lot  as  is  produced 
by  the  same  community  in  the  rear  half  of  the  small  lot,  and  both 
are  figured  out  on  the  basis  of  exactly  what  that  relative  value  is. 
If  it  is  desired  to  add  to  the  natural  land  value  of  the  large  lot  for 
plottage,  that  is  for  the  additional  desirability  of  the  large  plot,  that 
may  be  added  as  a  separate  factor,  which  factor  is  more  easily 
worked  out  upon  a  basis  that  will  treat  everybody  alike,  than  can 
possibly  happen  when  there  is  an  attempt  to  combine  the  plottage 
valuation  with  land  valuation. 

What  has  apparently  taken  place  in  the  construction  of  the 
Chicago  table,  as  we  have  already  pointed  out — and  the  plotting  of 
the  two  tables  together  seems  to  emphasize  that  point — is  that  this 
plottage  factor  has  been  included  as  frontage  value.  If  this  is  so,  or  if 
some  other  consideration  produced  the  ’table,  the  application  of  the 
Chicago  table  must  work  disastrously  to  the  owners  of  narrow 
frontages,  or  must  exempt  the  owners  of  large  plots  from  taxation 
upon  a  portion  of  their  values. 

The  Chicago  line  of  value  as  shown  on  the  chart  is  certainly 
indefensible  from  all  the  facts  touching  the  relation  of  site  values, 
one  to  another.  The  Somers  curve  is  defensible  from  any  stand¬ 
point,  and  does  represent  the  mathematical  relation  of  the  site  value 
that  the  community  produces  in  the  blocks  that  go  to  make  up  a  city. 

The  reason  for  not  adapting  the  Chicago  curve  of  value  to  resi¬ 
dence  property,  is  also  apparent  by  a  glance  at  the  chart.  The  rear 
end  of  residence  property  bears  not  even  approximately  any  such 
relation  to  the  front  portion  as  this  chart  would  work  out. 

If  we  eliminate  the  plottage  factor  from  the  Chicago  table,  we 
would  find  there  would  be  an  agreement  in  Chicago,  approximately 
at  least,  with  Mr.  Somers’  claim  that  72J/2  per  cent,  of  the  value  of 
a  lot  100  feet  deep  is  in  the  front  half.  This  would  move  the  curve 
line  representing  Chicago’s  percentage  up  at  the  50-foot  depth;  and 
as  the  line  necessarily  pivots  at  dOO  feet  deep,  it  would  move  down¬ 
ward  beyond  100  feet  deep.  This  is  exactly  what  Mr.  Somers’  and 
all  other  curves  of  depth  value,  except  the  Chicago  table,  show. 

There  are  several  other  curves  of  value  in  addition  to  that  of 
Mr.  Somers,  and  they  all  show  the  same  tendencies,  and  differ  one 
from  the  other  but  very  little;  not  one  of  them  takes  into  account 
the  plottage  value;  all  are  constructed  on  natural  lines,  and  do  not 
differ  radically  from  each  other.  The  Chicago  curve  differs  from 
every  other  curve  of  value  ever  constructed;  and  the  reason  for  that 

10 


•difference  can  only  be  because  of  the  effort  to  mix  in  the  plottage 
factor  along  with  natural  factors. 

The  fallacy  of  the  Chicago  Percentage  for  Depth  is  clearly 
illustrated  as  follows: 


STREET. 

Fig.  3. 

The  foregoing  diagram  shows  two  pieces  of  land;  one  is  50 
feet  wide  (A)  fronting  on  the  street  and  is  50  feet  deep.  Right 
behind  it  but  under  separate  ownership  in  another  piece  (B)  of 
ground  62 y2  feet  wide  and  50  feet  deep.  Under  the  Chicago  “Per¬ 
centage  for  Depth”  table,  these  two  parcels  of  ground  would  be 
computed  to  be  worth  exactly  the  same.  Simply  ask  yourself  the 
question,  “Which  of  these  two  parcels  would  I  choose  at  the  same 
price?”  There  is  probably  no  one  in  Chicago  who  would  choose 
parcel  B  in  preference  to  parcel  A;  nor  is  there  any  one  so  foolish 
as  to  pay  the  same  for  B  as  he  would  be  willing  to  pay  for  A. 
Under  the  Somers  System  B  would  have  to  have  a  width  of  132 
feet  to  be  computed  to  be  worth  the  same  as  A,  and  even  then  one 
might  hesitate  to  pay  the  same  for  B  as  A. 

REASONS  FOR  A  SINGLE  CURVE  OF  VALUE. 

The  basis  of  any  system  for  computing  land  values  is  necessarily 
in  the  method  of  treatment  of  the  value  of  each  receding  foot  from 
the  front,  on  that  portion  of  a  street  where  there  is  no  other  in¬ 
fluence  of  value  except  that  which  comes  through  the  first  foot  at 
the  front.  The  differences  in  this  treatment  are  graphically  explained 
both  by  discussion  and  diagram  in  another  portion  of  this  report. 
The  following,  written  by  Mr.  W.  A.  Somers,  the  inventor  of  the 
Somers  System,  and  Valuation  Actuary  for  the  Manufactured 
Appraisal  Company,  shows  the  evolution  from  theory  to  practice 

11 


that  finally  produced  the  Somers  Curve  of  Value.  While  theoretic¬ 
ally  there  ought  perhaps  to  be  three  “curves  of  value,”  Mr.  Somers 
points  out  the  practical  reasons  for  combining  them  into  one  as 
follows: 

“In  my  original  researches  for  the  principles  underlying  the 
differences  in  value  of  the  use  of  different  parts  of  city  lots,  I 
found  that  in  retail  business  property  the  lots  were  frequently  used 
to  very  shallow  depths,  50  feet  being  a  very  common  depth,  and  in 
many  cases  25  feet;  there  are  cases  of  use  as  low  as  3  feet.  In 
residence  territory  it  very  seldom  occurred  that  lots  were  less  than 
75  feet  deep,  and  more  frequently  ran  to  100  or  150  feet  in  depth. 
In  business  districts  where  property  was  exclusively  used  for  whole¬ 
sale  purposes,  very  few  lots  are  used  at  less  than  75  feet  to  100  feet* 
and  a  great  percentage  would  run  over  125  feet  in  depth. 

“In  the  western  cities  where  I  first  made  this  study  the  bound¬ 
aries  of  the  different  kinds  of  a  property  are  generally  quite  dis¬ 
tinct — that  is,  there  will  be  a  retail  district,  a  wholesale  district,  and 
a  residence  district,  blending  more  or  less  along  the  boundaries,  but 
not  generally  very  much  mixed.  These  facts  led  me  to  work  out 
three  curves  of  value,  one  for  the  strictly  retail  property  on  the 
basis  of  70  per  cent  for  the  first  50  feet,  100  per  cent  for  the  first 
100  feet,  115  per  cent  for  the  first  150  feet;  and  a  wholesale  curve 
with  about  65  per  cent  for  the  first  50  feet,  100  per  cent  for  the 
first  dOO  feet,  118  per  cent  for  the  first  150  'feet;  and  a  residence 
curve  based  upon  150  feet  in  depth  in  place  of  100. 

“I  very  soon  discovered  that  it  was  impractical  to  use  two  unit 
depths,  and  determined  that  100  feet  in  depth  was  the  best  depth 
for  value  units,  and  that  all  deductions  could  be  made  from  this  as 
a  unit,  more  conveniently  than  any  other. 

“On  continuing  the  study  in  eastern  cities  I  found  that  the 
divisions  of  the  different  uses  of  property  were  not  so  well  defined  as 
in  the  west.  On  looking  the  matter  over  I  found  that  practically 
shallow  lots  only  are  used  for  retail  purposes.  In  the  case  of 
property  more  than  100  feet  in  depth  the  percentages  of  value  of 
different  depths  on  a  basis  of  a  100-foot  unit  is  practically  the 
same  for  all  kinds  of  property.  Therefore,  one  curve  would  answer 
for  all  kinds  of  property,  the  only  exception  being  that  in  the  case 
of  strictly  residence  or  wholesale  property  where  lots  are  very 
shallow,  say  less  than  50  feet  in  depth,  an  adjustment  must  be  made. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  cases  of  this  kind  occur  very  seldom.  I  do  not 
recall  more  than  a  half  a  dozen  cases  in  all  my  experiences. 

“Of  course  in  all  rules  to  be  used  in  this  business  we  can  only 
claim  as  best  the  one  that  will  fit  the  largest  number  of  cases. 
There  will  always  be  exceptions,  but  the  Somers  curve  of  value  I 
think  will  fit  at  least  95  per  cent  of  all  situations,  and  it  is  much 
better  to  use  only  one  curve,  and  make  special  adjustments  for  the 
special  cases.” 

DIFFERENCE  IN  METHODS  OF  CORNER  VALUATION. 

The  two  methods  of  estimating  corner  values  are  quite  different. 
This  difference  is  fundamental.  The  Chicago  Plan  presupposes  that 
the  enhancement  of  values  at  the  corner  always  extends  100  feet, 
and  never  extends  more  than  100  feet.  The  Somers  System  recog¬ 
nizes  what  we  all  know  to  be  a  fact,  that  this  enhancement  varies 
in  its  extent.  Sometimes  it  affects  values  for  a  distance  of  less  than 
100  feet  from  the  corner,  and  sometimes  it  affects  values  more  than 
100  feet,  and  sometimes  only  100  feet.  The  Somers  System  not  only 
recognizes  all  this  as  a  fact,  but  has  a  mathematical  method  of 

12 


ascertaining  the  exact  situation  in  any  given  problem,  and  appor¬ 
tions  the  enhancement  of  values  as  far  and  as  far  only  as  they  may 
happen  to  run.  This  is  a  very  important  consideration,  especially  in 
the  Loop  district  of  Chicago,  where  corner  values  are  produced  by 
units  of  wide  variation.  For  instance,  a  street  having  a  unit  value 
of  $10,000  will  affect  values  farther  down  a  side  street  having  a  unit 
value  of  only  $1,000,  than  the  $1,000  unit  will  influence  values  from 
the  corner  on  the  $10,000  street.  When  we  say  that  this  enhance¬ 
ment.  goes  exactly  100  feet  in  both  instances,  we  are  saying  what  is 
not  true;  and  when  we  estimate  values  on  any  such  rule,  we  of 
course  do  not  obtain  the  true  relation  of  the  values  of  properties 
at  or  near  such  corners. 

The  Chicago  method  of  adding  for  corner  enhancement  is  arbi¬ 
trary.  It  is  not  the  mathematical  effect  of  one  value  upon  another. 
To  the  value  of  a  lot  exactly  100  feet  each  way  at  the  corner,  figured 
on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  higher  street,  is  added  60  per  cent 
of  the  value  as  figured  on  the  basis  of  the  lower  unit.  If  the  lot  is 
50  x  100,  fronting  50  feet  on  the  best  street,  50  per  cent  of  the 
value  of  the  lower  unit  is  added.  If  the  lot  fronts  50  feet  on  the 
less  valuable  street,  there  is  no  way  under  the  Chicago  Plan  of  accu¬ 
rately  computing  the  value. 

The  question  naturally  arises,  why  is  60  .per  cent,  added  in  one 
case  and  why  50  per  cent,  in  another?  How  were  the  percentages 
discovered  to  use  in  these  two  situations?  Why  was  not  59  per 

•cent  used  instead  of  60?  Why  not  65  per  cent?  We  find  in  the 

Chicago  percentage  table  that  differences  are  noted  to  the  hundredth 
part  of  a  per  cent.  Even  in  the  application  of  the  Chicago  corner 
plan  to  plots  of  very  small  size,  we  find  this  60  per  cent  distributed 
cut  into  percentages  starting  with  .03  of  1  per  cent;  so  we  see  that 
in  every  other  particular  except  that  very  basis  of  calculation  itself, 
the  Chicago  Plan  recognizes  that  value  and  enhancement  of  value 
travels  about  Jn  fractional  amounts;  it  seems  inconceivable  therefore 
— or  at  least  a  most  remarkable  coincidence — that  the  enhancement 
at  corners  should  be  exactly  60  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  parcel 

figured  on  the  lower  street  unit  plus  the  value  of  the  parcel  figured 

on  the  higher  street  unit;  and  that  always  five-sixths  of  this  enhance¬ 
ment  is  to  be  added  to  the  first  50  feet  from  the  corner  when  it  hap¬ 
pens  to  front  in  one  way  only — namely,  the  short  end  on  the  good 
street. 

The  corner  lot  plan  as  used  in  Chicago  is  therefore  defective  in 
the  following  particulars: 

il; — It  does  not  recognize  the  fact  that  corner  enhancement  of 
values  varies  in  its  extent  from  the  corners. 

2 —  It  has  no  method  to  measure  the  extent  of  the  corner  en¬ 
hancement  from  the  corner,  and  assumes  that  it  always  extends  100 
feet,  and  never  any  less  than  100  feet. 

3 —  Its  method  of  adding  for  enhancement  is  arbitrary  in  its  in¬ 
ception,  and  is  therefore  arbitrary  in  all  of  its  details;  there  is  no 
basis  for  the  selection  of  the  primary  60  per  cent  of  the  value  of 
100  feet  figured  on  the  lower  unit. 

A — There  is  no  method  of  estimating  the  value  of  a  lot  less  than 
100  feet  wide  fronting  on  the  less  valuable  street  at  a  corner,  with 
its  longer  side  on  the  higher-valued  street. 

Not  one  of  these  objections  can  be  made  against  the  Somers 
System.  It  does  recognize  the  fact  of  the  variation  in  the  extent  of 
the  corner  enhancement;  it  does  measure  out  exactly  where  the 
corner  enhancement  ceases  to  be  felt;  its  method  of  adding  for  the 
corner  influence  varies  with  every  combination  of  values  producing 

13 


the  corner  enhancement,  and  is  based  in  every  instance  upon  the 
mathematical  effect  of  one  unit  of  value  upon  another;  it  works  just 
as  well  when  the  lot  runs  the  “wrong”  way  as  when  it  runs  the 
“right”  way. 


METHODS  OF  DISTRIBUTING  ALLEY  VALUES. 

The  Chicago  Plan  of  adding  for  alleys  is  to  add  five  feet  to  the 
width  or  depth  of  the  lot,  as  the  case  may  be,  and  figure  the  five 
feet  as  if  it  were  a  part  of  the  lot.  This  plan  works  a  very  grave 
injustice  to  the  owners  of  the  lots  next  to  that  part  of  the  alley 
where  the  land  value  of  the  alley  is  highest.  An  alley  foot  is  ap¬ 
proximately  the  same  value  in  one  part  of  the  same  alley  as  in  an¬ 
other,  and  the  whole  land  value  of  the  alley  should  be  pro-rated  to 
all  of  the  property  that  gets  this  alley  benefit,  each  in  proportion  to 
the  number  of  feet  that  abut  on  the  alley.  Under  the  Chicago  Plan 
we  might  find  some  narrow  lots  running  along-side  an  alley,  and 
fronting  on  a  street,  that  would  give  a  land  value  in  five  feet  of  that 
alley,  and  next  to  the  narrow  lot,  which,  if  added  to  the  value  of  the 
narrow  lot  would  produce  figures  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  real  or 
relative  value  of  that  lot.  The  Somers  Plan  of  treating  an  alley  as 
a  whole,  and  distributing  that  value  pro  rata  is  not  only  fairer,  but 
is  really  in  accord  with  the  facts. 


APPLICATION  OF  THE  CHICAGO  PLAN  AND  THE 
SOMERS  SYSTEM  TO  THE  SAME  BLOCK. 

The  Chicago  block  bounded  by  State  and  Adams  Streets,  Wabash 
Avenue  and  Jackson  Boulevard  has  been  selected  by  the  Chicago 
assessing  department  upon  which  to  base  comparisons  of  the  effect 
of  the  application  of  the  Somers  System  and  the  Chicago  Plan  in 
actual  lot  valuations.  Mr.  Somers  spent  some  time  four  years  ago 
in  work  connected  with  the  assessment  for  tax  purposes  of  Chicago 
land  values,  and,  no  doubt  from  the  effect  of  his  efforts  at  that 
time,  there  has  been  an  attempt  to  express  judgments  of  value,  in 
the  Loop  district  at  least,  in  values  of  “unit  feet” — that  is,  parcels  of 
ground  a  foot  wide,  and  located  at  about  the  center  of  each  side  of 
the  block.  But  the  lack  of  scientific  application  of  Mr.  Somers' 
methods  in  this  fundamental  act  of  exercising  judgment  is  shown 
to  exist  in  the  very  block  submitted  to  us  for  examination.  This 
lack  will  appear  in  various  ways  as  we  discuss  this  block. 

The  unit  values  given  to  us  were  as  follows: 

State  street — $12,000. 

Adams  street — $5,000. 

Wabash  avenue — $5,000. 

Jackson  boulevard — $6,000. 

While  we  shall  show  that  these  so-called  unit  values  are  not 
the  judgment  of  value  even  for  a  proper  use  of  the  Chicago  Plan, 
because  all  of  them  are  not  used  every  time,  as  they  ought  to  be 
on  adjacent  property,  we  give  below  a  table  showing  the  valuations 
as  made  by  the  Chicago  assessing  department  and  given  to  us  by 
Mr.  Martin,  the  expert  of  that  department;  and  second,  the  values 
of  the  same  lots  as  figured  by  the  Somers  System,  on  the  supposi- 

14 


STATE'S!'. 

UNIT  <  12.000 


ADAMS  ST 

UNIT  ^  5.000 


© 


(c.)  $  2  ,  088,  800 
(S.)$  1,702,355 


o 

N 

Cc)«  3  30 ,0  00 

(s)*  2  8  0,  188 

© 

-4h 

3 

( c ;  $  371 , 250 

(sj<*  3l5,  213 

© 

H* 

CO  4  783,750 
(Sj£  665,448 

© 

*o 

*0 

(c.)  4  8  2  5,  000 
(aj  4  7  0  0,  473 

© 

o 

T 

(O  8  6  60 , 0  00 
(Sj*  560,378 

© 

w 

r> 

(<04  604,3  80 
(S>*  507,400 

© 

Vi 

© 

@ 

(fiT  80  8.340 
4(^774.2  04 


(cj*  7  0  8,  <50 
(a;#  7H  .  0  01 


© 


(c)$  8  85, 350 
(s)£  1,001,6-4  1 


4 

(C)  3  65,  ISO 

C S)4 3  1 5 , 330 

7 

© 

(<0*  26  3,500 

(S)«2I5.I35 

’♦ 

*■» 

© 

(c)  4  620,  000 

(sj*  501 , 856 

s 

® 

(c)  4  20  1 . 500 

(sj*  166 , 804 

N 

© 

W*43l  ,  000 

*4 

(s;4  3  83,  335 

© 

° 

s- 

•1 

'-"it 

®» < 
o  4 

5) 

©CO*  J  6  5°,°8  8  0  *2 

(s;*162.284 

<n  *** 

W30i 

(£)  (c)#20l.62S 

M  (S>*  225.  882  5 

rtfc\\CP>5  358,250  • 

^  V^3  75,  5»8  3 

\  114  V* 

UNIT  #  6,000 

JACKSON  BOUL',.  . 

(cri0,2  50 

(e)*  /4,  I  84- 

Fig.  4. 

Lot  Valuations  by  Chicago  Plan  and  Somers  System— Chicago  Units 
Used  as  Basis,  (c)  Chicago,  (s)  Somers. 


15 


WABASH  AVE. 


tion  that  these  units  are  proper  judgments  of  unit  values  on  the 
four  sides  of  this  block: 

(For  lot  numbers  see  Fig.  4.) 


1  ! 

Computed  by  Chicago 
Assessing  department  Computed  by 
Lot  Number.  Using  Chicago  Plan.  Somers  System. 

1  .  $  995,350  $1,001,641 

2  .  2,098,800  1,702,355 

3  .  330,000  280,189 

4  .  371,250  315,213 

5  .  365,150  315,330 

6  .  263,500  215,135 

7  .  620,000  501,956 

8  .  783,750  665,448 

9  .  825,000  700,473 

10  .  660,000  560,378 

11  .  604,380  507,400 

12  .  201,500  166,840 

13  .  431', 000  393,335 

14  .  165,890  162,294 

15  .  201,625  225,882 

16  .  359,250  375,519 

17  . 20,250  14,184 

18  .  139,310  457,323 

19  .  147,590  163,807 

20  .  708,150  711,001 

21  .  809,340  774,204 


Totals .  $11,101,085  $9,909,871 


It  will  be  seen  by  the  foregoing  table  that  all  of  the  lots  except 
Nos.  il,  15,  16,  18,  19  and  20  are  computed  higher  by  the  Chicago 
Plan  than  under  the  Somers  System.  This  fact  is  traceable  in  every 
case  except  the  corner  lot  No.  21,  to  the  difference  in  the  curve  of 
value  from  which  is  worked  out  the  values  of  rear  portions. 

Let  us  take  up  some  of  these  lots  separately: 

Lot  No.  1 — The  two  values  are  approximately  the  same.  This 
is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  rear  of  the  lot — the  portion  that  actually 
fronts  on  Adams  Street — is  figured  by  the  Chicago  Plan  on  the  basis 
of  the  Wabash  Avenue  unit,  and  under  the  Somers  System  on  the 
Adams  Street  unit,  and  as  these  units  are  exactly  the  same,  the  net 
result  would  be  about  the  same;  the  slight  difference  is  traceable 
here  more  to  the  two  differing  methods  of  figuring  alley  influence. 

Lot  No.  2 — Here  is  a  difference  in  the  two  results  of  $396,445. 
This  difference  is  traceable  to  two  factors:  First,  the  portion  of  this 
lot  on  Adams  Street  beyond  the  100-foot  corner  influence  is  figured 
by  the  Chicago  Plan  on  the  'basis  of  the  $12,000  unit  on  State 
Street,  and  not  on  the  basis  of  the  unit  of  value  on  Adams  Street; 
second,  the  alley  influence  is  figured  on  the  basis  of  the  State  Street 
unit  of  value,  and  not  on  its  proportion  of  the  alley  value  on  any 
fair  basis.  In  other  words,  the  Chicago  Plan  says  first  that  the 
corner  influence  made  by  State  and  Adams  Streets,  coming  together, 
only  extends  100  feet  on  Adams  Street  from  the  corner,  and  then 
it  adds  about  $7,000  a  foot  front  to  the  Adams  Street  unit  of  value 
for  the  purpose  of  valuing  the  44.9  feet  that  front  on  Adams  Street; 
and  worse  than  that,  it  also  values  five  feet  of  the  alley  abutting  on 
this  portion  of  the  lot  at  the  same  rate. 

16 


The  result  on  these  two  lots  produces  some  very  queer  and 
seemingly  unjustifiable  results.  An  alley  foot  in  the  middle  of  Lot 
No.  2  is  worth  $600  in  addition  to  the  land  value  abutting;  right 
across  the  alley,  an  alley  unit  in  the  middle  of  Lot  No.  1  is  worth 
only  $250.  This  alley  ought  to  be  just  as  valuable  on  one  side  as 
on  the  other;  in  point  of  fact  it  is  just  as  valuable  at  these  two  points 
under  consideration,  no  matter  by  what  method  of  computation  one 
arrives  at  the  result.  What  is  there  to  justify  a  value  240  per  cent 
higher  on  one  side  of  the  same  alley  than  on  the  other?  We  find 
this  same  alley  trouble  farther  back  from  the  street.  Take  an  alley 
foot  in  the  middle  of  lot  No.  10,  and  we  find  a  value  computed  by 
the  Chicago  Plan  of  $426;  right  across  the  alley  in  the  middle  of 
Lot  No.  12,  we  find  the  same  alley  is  worth  only  $162.50.  Of  course 
this  alley  discrepancy  runs  the  whole  length  of  the  two  sides.  In 
addition  to  the  discrepancies  pointed  out,  the  whole  Chicago  alley 
plan  is  wrong  in  principle.  It  not  only  heaps  up  values  against  the 
lots  on  the  side  of  the  block  toward  the  higher  units,  and  on  lots 
that  lie  alongside  of  alleys  where  the  alleys  meet  the  streets,  but 
it  places  the  same  relative  value  on  an  alley  ten  feet  wide  that  it 
does  on  an  alley  20  or  22  feet  wide;  and  manifestly  the  light  and 
air  to  be  obtained  from  an  alley  22  feet  wide  are  greatly  in  excess 
in  value,  especially  between  two  high  buildings,  than  in  the  case 
of  an  alley  10  feet  wide. 

Let  us  return  to  another  feature  of  Lot  No.  2.  Under  the 
Chicago  Plan  this  lot  would  be  computed  to  the  same  value  exactly 
if  there  were  a  $12,000  unit  on  Adams  Street  and  a  $5,000  unit  on 
State  Street;  yet  there  is  no  person  so  ignorant  of  land  values  as 
not  to  know  that  a  lot  that  has  a  frontage  of  144.9  feet  on  a  street 
with  a  unit  value  of  $12,000  and  a  frontage  of  100  feet  on  a  street 
with  a  unit  value  of  only  $5,000,  is  worth  very  much  more  than  is  a 
lot  with  values  just  reversed.  What  shall  we  say  of  a  system  that 
measures  out  values  under  two  situations  so  widely  different  in  their 
effects,  so  that  the  result  is  exactly  the  same? 

Let  us  now  consider  the  rear  portions  of  Lots  Nos.  If  and  2, 
that  is  the  portions  not  figured  by  the  corner  lot  tables  of  the 
Chicago  Plan.  At  the  rear  of  Lot  No.  1  we  have  71  feet  fronting 
on  Adams  Street  with  a  depth  of  80  feet.  This  ought  to  be  figured 
at  the  Adams  Street  unit,  but  it  is  not, — it  is  figured  at  the 
Wabash  Avenue  unit;  as  these  two  units  happen  to  be  the  same, 
the  result  is  not  very  different  in  either  case;  in  the  case  of  Lot 
No.  2,  however,  we  have  44.9  frontage  on  Adams  Street,  100  feet 
deep.  If  it  were  figured  at  the  Adams  Street  unit  value  it  would 
be  44.9  times  $5,000;  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  figured  at  $120  a 
square  foot,  which  is  the  square  foot  value  of  the  first  hundred  feet 
from  the  front  on  State  Street.  Even  the  Chicago  percentage  for 
depth  table  is  not  used,  but  the  whole  tract  is  figured  as  of  the 
same  value  as  any  part  of  the  first  100  feet  from  the  street  front 
on  State  Street.  Another  view  of  this  method  is,  after  saying  that 
the  corner  influence  does  not  exert  itself  over  100  feet  from  the 
corner  of  Adams  and  State  Streets  on  Adams  Street,  there  is  added 
over  $7,000  per  foot  because  this  part  of  the  lot  is  under  corner 
influence.  Of  course  it  may  be  that  $5,000  does  not  represent  the 
true  unit  value  on  Adams  Street.  This  $5,000  unit  value  does  not 
seem  to  be  used  for  any  frontage  on  Adams  Street;  its  only  use 
appears  to  be  to  affect  the  value  of  100  feet  from  either  corner,  and 
after  that  the  values  are  based  on  the  unit  values  of  other  streets. 
On  Adams  Street  we  have  two  units  of  values — one  toward  Wabash 
Avenue  at  about  $5,000  and  the  other  toward  State  Street  at  over 
$12,000.  Such  absurd  jumps  in  value  do  not  occur  anywhere. 

17 


If  the  three  units  on  these  three  streets  are  correct  relatively 
and  specifically,  the  values  of  these  two  lots  figured  out  under  the 
Somers  System  will  stand  a  much  severer  analysis  from  every  stand¬ 
point.  Under  the  Somers  System  the  Adams  Street  $5,000  unit 
stands  for  something;  it  means  that  all  of  the  frontage  on  that 
street  far  enough  away  not  to  be  influenced  by  the  units  of  the 
other  streets,  shall  be  computed  on  the  $5,000  basis.  There  is  some 
“overlap”  on  Adams  Street  towards  State  Street,  because  State 
Street  is  so  much  better  that  its  effect  runs  farther  on  Adams 
Street  than  100  feet;  but  it  does  not  amount  to  more  than  doubling 
the  value  of  the  Adams  Street  unit.  The  part  of  this  land  affected 
by  the  overlap  from  the  State  Street  unit  is  illustrated  in  Fig.  7, 
which  diagram  illustrates  the  effect  of  every  unit  in  the  block  on 
every  square  foot  of  the  block. 

The  trouble  with  the  valuation  of  this  lot  lies  in  the  expression 
of  judgment  in  the  units  themselves,  and  the  use  of  those  units 
after  they  have  been  obtained.  The  relation  between  State  and 
Adams  Streets  as  expressed  in  these  units  may  be  wrong.  The 
relation  between  all  the  other  units  may  or  may  not  be  accurate, 
but  they  cannot  be  assumed  to  be  right  if  any  one  of  them  is  only 
expressed  for  the  purpose  of  getting  at  some  unknown  corner  value. 
Corner  values  are  the  effect  of  two  other  values  coming  together, 
and  those  other  values  must  be  shown  before  we  can  find  out  what 
that  effect  is.  Under  the  Chicago  Plan — especially  on  Adams  Street 
— the  unit  appears  to  have  been  used  only  for  the  purpose  of  bring¬ 
ing  about  some  pre-conceived  notion  of  corner  value,  and  then 
ignored  for  the  real  frontage  on  the  street. 

The  differences  in  Lots  Nos.  3,  4,  8,  9,  10  and  11,  all  fronting 
on  State  Street,  are  all  traceable  to  the  percentages  for  depth  that 
have  been  discussed  at  length  at  another  place  in  this  report.  The 
same  is  true  of  Lots  Nos.  5,  6,  7,  12  and  13,  fronting  on  Wabash 
Avenue. 

Lots  14,  15  and  16  front  the  short  way  on  the  lower-valued 
street,  and  run  lengthwise  with  the  higher  valued  street.  The  expert 
of  the  Chicago  assessing  department  acknowledges  that  the  Chicago 
corner  lot  plan  does  not  properly  compute  corner  lots  so  situated 
to  the  corner.  This  is  especially  illustrated  by  the  valuation  made 
by  the  Chicago  department  on  Lot  No.  16.  This  lot  would  figure 
out  the  same  in  value  if  the  high  unit  were  on  Wabash  Avenue, 
instead  of  being  on  Jackson  Boulevard,  with  the  lower  unit  also 
transposed,  as  it  is  with  the  units  as  they  are  on  this  plat.  Of 
course  if  the  units  were  transposed,  the  value  of  this  lot  would  not 
be  the  same  as  with  the  units  as  they  are.  The  Somers  System 
computation  gives  an  accurate  distribution  of  values,  all  of  which 
can  be  defended,  and  all  of  which  would  change  on  these  particular 
lots  if  the  units  were  transposed.  The  computation  of  Lot  No.  16 
at  the  corner  is  very  much  higher  than  the  Chicago  Plan  figures  it, 
but  of  course  any  comparison  of  a  result  that  is  mathematically 
arrived  at  with  one  that  is  acknowledged  to  be  wrong  in  itself  be¬ 
cause  the  methods  used  are  wrong,  amounts  to  but  little.  The 
Somers  results  show  a  dropping  away  of  values  in  the  three  lots 
under  all  the  conditions  surrounding  this  corner. 

Lots  Nos.  18  and  19 — The  differences  in  the  values  of  these  two 
lots  are  traceable  entirely  to  the  different  percentage  for  depth. 
Under  the  Somers  System  there  is  a  greater  value  given  to  the 
first  75  feet  from  the  front  than  is  given  under  the  Chicago  Plan. 

Lots  Nos.  20  and  21 — Lot  No.  20  is  an  irregular-shaped  lot,  and 
the  values  by  the  two  computations  are  practically  the  same.  Yet 
we  find  a  queer  situation  at  this  corner  if  we  combine  the  values 

18 


of  the  two  lots,  Nos.  20  and  21,  as  computed  under  the  Chicago 
Plan.  If  we  combine  these  two  lots  we  have  a  lot  80  feet  front  on 
State  Street  and  144  feet  front  on  Jackson  Boulevard.  Valuing  all 
of  this  land  under  the  Chicago  Plan,  we  have  a  comp'uted  value  of 
$1,781,904.  If  we  compute  Lot  No.  21  under  the  Chicago  Plan  we 
have  the  value  of  that  lot  just  as  it  is  given  by  the  Chicago  depart¬ 
ment,  $809,340.  Manifestly  the  value  of  the  Lot  No.  20  must  be  the 
difference  between  these  two,  or  $972,564;  yet  we  find  the  Chicago 
department  has  computed  the  value  of  this  lot  in  some  way  at 
$708,150.  We  confess  that,  while  we  are  able  to  apply  the  Chicago 
Plan  to  every  other  computation  in  this  block  and  obtain  the  same 
results,  we  are  unable  to  apply  any  part  of  the  Chicago  rules  to 
bring  about  this  result.  There  appears  to  be  a  loss  in  some  way  of 
$264,414  on  this  lot.  If  this  is  but  an  error  in  computation  we  have 
nothing  further  to  say,  as  errors  have  occurred  before  in  computa¬ 
tions  of  this  sort  and  are  likely  to  occur  again;  but  if  this  value  of 
$708,1160  is  figured  out  accurately  by  the  Chicago  Plan,  it  does  not 
represent  in  its  result  anywhere  near  the  true  relation  of  value  to 
that  of  the  lot  next  to  it,  No.  21.  The  difference  between  the  two 
values  in  the  case  of  Lot  No.  21  is  traceable  to  the  different  methods 
of  handling  corner  values.  It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  here  the 
discussion  concerning  the  two  methods  for  this  sort  of  a  computa¬ 
tion;  the  difference  is  but  4 y2  iper  cent. 


COMPARATIVE  RESULTS  OF  LOT  COMPUTATIONS  MADE 
FROM  UNITS  DEDUCED  FROM  SPECIFIC  LOT  VALUES. 

However,  we  will  make  another  comparison  of  the  use  of  the 
two  systems,  using  for  that  purpose  units  as  nearly  as  they  can  be 
deduced  from  the  lot  computations  actually  made  for  inside  lots  on 
this  block  by  the  Chicago  department.  We  have  actual  lot  frontages 
on  three  sides  of  this  'block.  Take  the  valuations  of  the  Chicago 
department  on  Lot  No.  9  and  on  Lot  No.  7,  and  we  find  that  their 
specific  values  of  these  two  lots  give  a  Somers  unit  on  State  Street 
of  about  $14,400,  and  on  Wabash  Avenue  of  about  $6,000.  In  point 
of  fact  these  figures  are  a  shade  high  for  State  Street,  and  a  shade 
low  for  Wabash  Avenue,  but  we  have  used  20  per  cent  because  we 
find  about  20  per  cent  difference  when  we  compare  the  Chicago 
valuation  of  Lots  Nos.  18  and  19,  in  Jackson  Boulevard,  and  deduce 
a  Somers  unit  of  $7,200  for  Jackson  Boulevard.  Increasing  the 
Chicago  units  on  three  sides  20  per  cent  to  obtain  a  Somers  unit, 
we  do  the  same  thing  on  Adams  Street,  where  we  have  no  actual 
frontage  of  a  single  lot  to  use  for  a  basis.  This  method  of  expressing 
values  as  brought  out  for  typical  inside  lots  by  the  Chicago  assess¬ 
ing  department  necessitates  higher  figures  to  bring  the  same  results 
for  the  interior  lots. 

We  therefore  compute  the  lot  values  in  this  block  on  the  fol¬ 
lowing  units: 

State  Street — $14,400. 

Adams  Street — $6,000. 

Wabash  Avenue — $6,000. 

Jackson  Boulevard — $7,200. 


19 


STATE 'ST. 


ADAMS  ST. 

UNIT  (C)*5000  (S^cooo 
18 


C«0  #  2,  0^8,  800 

(S)$  2,  04-2a9ZS, 


® 


Cc)*  330 , 0  00 

Cs)*  3  36 , 227 

(c)4  371 , 250 

® 

(S)#  378,  256 

(=)#  783,  750 

r- 

t 

(5)$  7 8  8,537 

(c)  $  825,000 

£ 

(s)  #  840,568 

(c)  #  640,0  00 

© 

T 

(S)4  6  72,453 

(c)  £  6  04 , 3  8  0 

© 

£ 

(Sj#  6  08,  880 

0 

w(cr  30<7.340 
<o  (57#<J2<?.  04-5 


(cj»  7  0  3,150 
(s)$  8  53,  2.0 1 


(c)*  8«?  s  ,35-0 
(St)#  1,201,64-1 


(c)  3  65, 15-0 
(S)#378,  386 


(<0#  26  3. 500 
CsJ»258,  162 


(Cj  •&  620,000 
(Sj  *  6  02,34-7 


@  (c)<t  201  ,  500 

(S)  #  2  00  ,  >65 


© 


(<0  #4  31  ,  000 
(9)$  472,  002 


©  ©W  I  6  5,88  0 
(sJ*lg4,  7  53 
Cc)#20I,625 

(S)#  27/,  0  58 

(c;^357  ,250 

S)$  4J 0  ,  6  23 

'/x 


UNIT  (c)*  6  000  (S/7200 

JACKSON  BOUL^ 


(<2  0,250 
(6.)*  17,021 


Fig.  6. 

Lot  Valuations  by  Chicago  Plan  and  Somers  System — Chicago  Lot 
Valuations  Used  as  Basis,  (c)  Chicago,  (s)  Somers. 


20 


UN  IT  (c)  #  5" 000  (3)^000 

WABASH  AVE. 


These  lot  values  compared  with  the  lot  values  computed  by  the 
Chicago  department  are  as  follows:  (See  Fig.  6): 


Lot  No. 

Chicago  lot 
valuation. 

Distribution  of 
same  value  by 
Somers  System. 

1  . 

..  $  995,350 

$1,201,641 

2  . 

...  2,098,800. 

2,042,826 

3  . 

330,000 

336,227 

4  . 

371,250 

378,256 

5  . 

365,150 

378,396 

6  . 

263,500 

258,162 

7  . 

620,000 

602,347 

8  . 

783,750 

798,537 

9  . 

825,000 

840,568 

10  . 

660,000 

672,453 

11  . 

604,380 

608,880 

12  . 

201,500 

200,165 

13  . 

431,000 

472,002 

14  . 

. . .  H65,890 

194,753 

15  . 

201,625 

271,058 

16  . 

359,250 

450,623 

17  . 

20,250 

17,021 

18  . 

139,310 

188,787 

19  . 

147,590 

196,568 

20  . 

708,150 

853,201 

21  . 

809,340 

929,045 

Totals, 

,..$11,101,085 

$11,891,516 

A  discussion  in  detail  of  the  values  of  the  lots  thus  computed 
may  not  be  necessary.  In  considering  the  specific  lot  value  it  must 
be  remembered  that  the  value  of  the  interior  lots  on  State  Street  and 
Wabash  Avenue  are  approximately  the  same;  they  are  in  fact  meant 
to  be  the  same,  the  difference  noted  being  entirely  because  of  the  slight 
adjustment  so  as  to  use  round  unit  values  instead  of  fractions.  It 
will  be  seen  that  with  this  expression  of  the  judgment  of  value, 
Lot  No.  2  is  approximately  the  same  under  both  computations, 
while  Lot  No.  1  is  much  higher  under  this  second  treatment. 

What  is  said  by  this  table  is  that  if  Lot  No.  9  is  worth  $825,000, 
and  if  Lot  No.  19  is  worth  $147,590,  then  Lot  No.  21,  at  the  corner, 
is  worth  $929,045,  and  not  $809,340.  And  so  on  around  the  block, 
taking  the  specific  lot  values  of  typical  inside  lots  as  set  forth  by 
the  Chicago  assessing  department,  we  arrive  at  the  corner  lot  values 
and  values  near  the  corners,  and  values  affected  by  overlapping 
units,  as  set  forth  for-  each  of  the  lots  in  this  block. 

Under  the  Chicago  method  the  square  foot  located  in  Lot  No. 
2  alongside  the  alley  and  80  feet  from  Adams  Street,  and  excluding 
any  alley  effect,  is  worth  $120;  a  square  foot  straight  across  the 
alley  in  lot  No.  1,  only  18  feet  away,  and  without  the  alley  effect, 
is  worth  $50.  Of  course  no  such  difference  in  actual  value  exists. 
Under  the  Somers  System  computation  either  of  these  square  feet 
is  worth-  $25.50.  And  why  should  they  not  be  of  exactly  the  same 
value?  They  are  each  80  feet  from  the  same  street  frontage  and 
bear  the  same  relation  each  to  the  79  feet  in  front  toward  Adams 
Street,  as  does  the  other. 

The  square  foot  in  Lot  No.  2,  located  100  feet  from  Adams 
Street  and  144.9  feet  from  State  Street,  and  without  the  effect  of 

21 


the  alley,  is  computed  to  be  worth  $120;  the  square  foot  next  to 
it  in  Lot  No.  3  is  computed  to  be  worth  $76.80;  the  absurdity  of 
this  result  appears  upon  the  mere  statement  of  the  results  of  the 
computations  for  each  square  foot. 


USE  OF  CORNER  LOT  DIAGRAMS. 


H 

UJ 

111 

cr 

i- 

(/) 


10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

qo 

100 

q 

iq 

cq 

3q 

4q 

sq 

6q 

7q 

sq 

qq 

8 

18 

28 

38 

48 

58 

68 

76 

88 

q8 

7 

!7 

27 

37 

47 

57 

67 

77 

87 

97 

6 

16 

26 

36 

46 

56 

66 

76 

86 

96 

5 

15 

25 

35 

45 

55 

65 

75 

85 

95 

4 

14 

24 

34 

44 

54 

64 

74 

84 

94 

3 

13 

23 

33 

43 

53 

63 

73 

83 

93 

2 

12 

22 

32 

42 

52 

62 

72 

82 

92 

1 

II 

21 

31 

41 

51 

61 

71 

SI 

91 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

IOC 

SI 

82 

S3 

64 

85 

86 

87 

68 

89 

90 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

61 

62 

63 

04- 

«| 

66 

37 

68 

69 

70 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

80 

4! 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

3S 

37 

36 

39 

40 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

<  BEST  STREET 


&  STREET 


Fig.  5. 


The  above  diagrams  are  used  in  the  computation  of  corner 
values.  Each  diagram  represents  100  feet  square,  on  the  corner  of 
a  block.  The  number  in  each  small  square  is  an  index  number.  The 
Somers  Corner  tables  show  the  value  of  each  of  these  small  squares 
for  every  conceivable  combination  of  unit  values  on  the  two  sides. 
The  side  of  the  above  squares  marked  “best  street”  must  be  laid 
alongside  the  street  coming  to  the  corner  with  the  highest  unit.  In 
the  following  description  of  the  method  of  computing  this  block, 
the  numbers  of  small  squares  are  indicated  in  one  or  the  other  of 
the  foregoing  diagrams,  and  anyone  can  determine  which  one  by 
following  the  directions  as  to  where  the  side  of  the  diagram  marked 
“best  street”  is  to  be  placed. 

It  is  because  the  Somers  tables  show  specific  values  for  each 
of  these  small  portions  of  the  whole  area  affected  by  corner  in¬ 
fluence,  that  they  may  be  as  well  used  with  lots  running  the  “wrong” 
way  with  the  units  as  with  lots  running  the  “right”  way.  The  values 
that  Mr.  Somers  has  worked  out  for  these  small  squares  is  the 
mathematical  effect  of  two  units  of  value  coming  together  at  a  cor¬ 
ner  upon  each  of  the  small  squares,  taking  into  consideration  the 
mathematical  relation  and  position  of  each  square  to  the  actual 
corner.  Small  square  No.  1  is  always  the  most  valuable;  the  value 
of  each  of  the  other  squares  drops  away  in  curves  in  every  direction 
from  No.  1,  and  the  curves  so  formed  are  always  commensurate 
with  the  mathematical  effect  of  one  unit  of  value  upon  another. 
In  this  way  the  enhancement  of  value  at  the  corner  is  apportioned 
to  each  separate  property  always  in  proportion  to  its  size  and 
shape,  and  its  relation  to  the  corner;  and  that  higher  part  of  en¬ 
hancement  which  is  at  the  corner  is  always  apportioned  to  the  lot 
which  includes  the  actual  corner,  while  those  lots  that  are  not  at 
the  actual  corner  but  only  “near”  the  corner,  are  enhanced  only 
their  portion  because  of  the  “nearness.” 

22 


DESCRIPTION  OF  LOT  COMPUTATION  IN  CHICAGO 
BLOCK  BOUNDED  BY  STATE  AND  ADAMS 
STREETS,  WABASH  AVENUE  AND 
JACKSON  BOULEVARD. 

The  following  is  a  description  in  detail  of  the  careful  method  of 
ascertaining  all  of  the  value  that  exists  in  the  land  as  expressed  by 
the  judgment  and  shown  in  the  units.  To  follow  this  description 
carefully  one  ought  to  compare  each  dimension  and  statement  with 
the  exhibits  on  the  two  diagrams  marked  Fig.  4  and  Fig.  7.  The 
first  of  these  diagrams  shows  the  actual  lot  valuations  by  the  two 
systems,  using  the  units  given  by  the  Chicago  assessing  department 
as  true  units  of  value;  the  other  exhibits  the  Somers  method  of  ob¬ 
taining  the  gross  land  value  of  the  block,  and  shows  the  extent  of 
the  effect  of  the  various  units  used  for  computation. 

The  description  of  the  method  of  making  these  lot  valuations 
is  as  follows  by  the  Somers  system: 

The  first  operation  in  figuring  any  block  is  to  ascertain  the  alley 
unit;  this  is  done  by  figuring  the  value  of  the  alley  as  though  it 
were  a  lot,  its  several  parts  being  valued  from  the  influences  of 
the  units  which  naturally  affect  them. 

This  alley  is  18  feet  wide,  and  is  396  feet  long  on  one  side  and 
395  feet  long  on  the  other  side.  Toward  the  Adams  Street  end  of 
the  alley  the  $5,000  unit  applies,  and  toward  the  Jackson  Boulevard 
end  of  the  alley  the  $6,000  unit  applies.  In  the  center  it  is  found 
that  the  $12,000  unit  on  State  Street  exerts  an  influence  extending 
back  into  and  including  the  bed  of  the  alley.  Therefore,  this  central 
portion  of  the  alley  is  figured  from  the  State  Street  side.  In  this 
way  we  find  the  gross  value  of  the  alley,  which  amounts  to  $274,867, 
and  dividing  this  by  the  frontage  of  791  feet,  we  obtain  the  alley 
unit  of  $347.45.  Therefore,  the  sum  of  $347.45  is  added  for  every 
foot  of  alley  frontage  to  the  values  of  those  lots  that  abut  upon  the 
alley. 

The  second  operation  in  figuring  any  block  is  to  ascertain  the 
values  of  all  the  properties  within  the  corner  influence,  but  for  the 
purposes  of  this  description,  lots  will  be  given  in  the  following 
order:  2,  3,  4,  8,  9,  10,  Ul>,  21,  20,  19,  18,  17,  16,  15,  14,  13, 
12,  7,  6,  5  and  1. 

Lot  No.  2  takes  in  all  of  the  value  in  the  100-foot  corner  square 
as  shown  in  the  Somers  corner  tables.  According  to  the  $12,000- 
$5,000  unit  it  amounts  to  $1,420,848,  but  as  this  lot  measures  100 
feet  on  State  Street  ($12,000  unit)  and  44.9  on  Adams  Street,  ($5,000 
unit)  there  is  a  strip  of  ground  outside  of  the  corner  valuation  table 
measuring  44.9  x  100  feet.  In  making  the  computation  it  is  found 
that  at  a  point  50  feet  back  from  Adams  Street,  and  100  feet  back 
from  State  Street,  the  influence  of  the  $12,000  unit  on  State  Street 
exceeds  that  of  the  $5,000  unit  on  Adams  Street.  Therefore,  the 
influence  of  the  $5,000  unit  is  figured  to  a  depth  of  only  50  feet, 
giving  a  value  to  this  small  piece  of  Lot  No.  2  of  $162,762.  The 
remainder  of  this  lot  50  feet  back  from  Adams  Street,  and  100  feet 
back  from  State  Street  measuring  44.9  x  50  feet,  is  figured  from  the 
$12,000  unit  on  State  Street,  and  amounts  to  $84,000.  To  the  sum 
of  these  figures  must  be  added  $347.45  for  each  of  the  100  feet  of 
alley  frontage  this  lot  has,  making  a  grand  total  of  $1,702,355. 

Lot  No.  3  is  purely  an  inside  lot,  20  feet  fronting  on  State 
Street  and  144.9  in  depth  to  the  alley;  it  is,  therefore,  figured  entirely 

23 


from  the  $12,000  unit.  Referring  to  the  Somers  depth  tables  shows 
that  lots  144.9  feet  deep  are  worth  113.85'  per  cent  of  the  value  of 
the  unit.  This  computation  gives  a  value  of  $273,240  for  the  lot,  to 
which  is  added  $6,949  for  20  feet  of  alley  frontage  at  $347.45,  giving 
a  grand  total  of  $280,189. 

Lot  No.  4,  also  an  inside  lot,  is  figured  in  exactly  the  same 
way  as  lot  No.  3,  the  only  difference  being  that  it  is  slightly  wider. 
The  ground  is  worth  $307,395,  and  the  alley  adds  $7,818,  making  a 
grand  total  of  $315,213. 

The  same  rules  apply  in  computing  the  values  of  Lot  No.  8, 
worth  $665,448;  No.  9,  worth  $700,473,  and  No.  10,  worth  $560,378. 

Lot  No.  11  measures  36  x  144.9  feet,  and  of  this  total  a  strip 
16.1  feet  x  144  feet  is  outside  the  corner  valuation  table.  It  is, 
therefore,  figured  as  an  inside  lot  16.1  foot  frontage,  with  a  depth 
of  144  feet,  and  is  worth  $219,958.  It  will  be  noted  that  this  depth 
is  given  as  144  feet  because  the  block  is  slightly  irregular  in  shape, 
the  Jackson  Boulevard  end  measuring  144  feet,  while  the  Adams 
Street  end  measures  144.9  feet.  That  part  of  Lot  No.  11  within  the 
corner  influence  takes  in  99-100  of  the  values  of  squares  81  to  90  in 
the  $12,000-$6,000  Somers  corner  table,  the  units  being  those  on 
State  Street  and  Jackson  Boulevard,  respectively.  It  also  takes  in 
all  of  the  value  in  squares  91  to  100  in  the  same  table,  the  total 
amounting  to  $241,860.  There  is  a  small  piece  of  this  lot  which 
cannot  be  figured  straight  back  from  the  street  because  it  is  in  the 
rear  of  that  part  of  the  lot  within  the  corner  influence.  It  measures 
19.9  x  44  feet,  and  is  valued  from  the  $12,000  unit  on  State  Street; 
the  method  of  computing  being  to  deduct  the  percentage  corres¬ 
ponding  to  a  depth  of  100  feet  (100  per  cent)  from  the  percentage 
corresponding  to  a  depth  of  144  feet  (113.85  per  cent),  leaving  13.85 
per  cent.  This  percentage,  therefore,  is  taken  of  the  $12,000  unit 
and  multiplied  by  19.9  feet,  giving  a  value  for  this  part  of  the  lot  of 
$33,074.  To  these  several  sums  $12,508,  for  36  feet  of  alley,  is  added, 
making  a  grand  total  of  $507,400. 

Lot  No.  20  consists  of  two  parts,  and  these  two  parts  may  be 
computed  more  easily  separately  than  together.  The  first  portion 
is  that  which  fronts  on  State  Street  and  measures  22  feet  1  y2  inches 
x  73  feet.  This  tract  is  wholly  within  the  influence  of  the  $12,000 
corner  at  the  intersection  of  State  Street  and  Jackson  Boulevard 
(units  $12,000  and  $6,000  respectively).  As  this  portion  fronts  on 
State  Street  and  is  58  feet  from  Jackson  Boulevard  it  has  2-10  of 
the  value  of  the  squares  51  to  57,  in  the  $12,000-$6,000  corner 
table;  all  of  the  value  of  the  squares  61  to  67;  all  of  the  value  of 
the  squares  71  to  77,  and  1-100  of  the  value  of  the  squares  81  to 
87,  making  a  total  for  this  portion  of  Lot  No.  20  of  $242,172.  The 
other  portion  of  this  lot  fronts  on  Jackson  Boulevard.  It  measures 
71  feet  x  80  feet  \y2  inches  and  is  partly  within  the  influence  of  the 
$12,000-$6,000  unit  at  State  and  Jackson  Boulevard.  That  part  to 
be  computed  by  the  corner  valuation  table  measures  27  feet  x  80'  feet 
\l/2  inches,  therefore  is  worth  the  sum  of  the  values  of  the  follow¬ 
ing  squares  in  the  $12,000-$6,000  Somers  corner  table:  7-10  of  8,  18, 
28,  38,  48,  58,  68  and  78,  1-100  of  square  88,  the  totals  of  9  and  10, 
19  and  20,  29  and  30,  39  and  40,  49  and  50,  59  and  60,  69  and  70, 
79  and  80,  and  1-100  of  the  total  of  89  and  90,  amounting  to  $197,712. 
The  remaining  frontage  of  44  feet  on  Jackson  Boulevard  is  figured 
to  a  depth  of  60  feet  as  an  inside  lot,  its  value  being  $209,880,  and 
a  small  piece  of  the  lot  in  the  rear  of  the  100  foot  square  and  60 
feet  back  from  Jackson  Boulevard,  is  figured  from  the  $12,000  unit 
on  State  Street,  for  reasons  described  in  connection  -  with  Lot  No. 
2.  To  these  several  sums  must  be  added  $27,831  for  80.1  feet  of 

24 


alley  frontage,  making  a  grand  total  of  $468,829.  The  total  value  of 
the  two  portions,  and  therefore  of  the  entire  Lot  No.  20  is  $711,001. 

Lot  No.  21  is  entirely  within  the  influence  of  the  $12,000-$6,000 
corner  at  the  intersection  of  State  Street  and  Jackson  Boulevard 
(units  $12,000  and  $6,000  respectively),  its  value  'being  equal  to  the 
value  of  the  following  squares  in  the  $12,000-$6,000  Somers  corner 
table:  Nos.  1  to  7,  11  to  17,  21  to  27,  31  to  37,  41  to  47,  8-10  of 
51  to  57,  3-10  of  the  values  of  squares  8,  18,  28,  38  and  48,  and  24-100 
of  square  No.  58;  making  a  grand  total  of  $774,204. 

Lot  No.  19  is  an  inside  lot,  26  x  75  feet,  and  its  value  is  figured 
by  taking  that  percentage  of  the  Jackson  Boulevard  unit  correspond¬ 
ing  to  a  depth  of  75  feet  (88.3)  and  multiplying  that  by  the  frontage, 
26  feet,  making  a  total  of  $137,748;  to  this  is  added  $26,059,  for  75 
feet  of  alley  frontage,  making  a  grand  total  of  $163,807. 

Lot  No.  18  also  is  an  inside  lot,  but  owing  to  its  irregular  shape 
it  is  figured  in  two  sections,  the  first  being  26  x  75  feet,  and  the 
second  4 y2  x  50  feet,  the  offset  caused  by  Lot  No.  17.  The  total 
value  is  $157,323. 

Lot  No.  17  undoubtedly  has  some  means  of  access  to  either  a 
street  or  alley.  Owing  to  the  fact  that  no  such  means  of  access  are 
shown  on  the  plan  it  is  figured  as  a  piece  of  land,  just  as  though  it 
were  a  part  of  one  of  the  lots  which  it  adjoins.  The  computation 
is  made  from  the  $6,000  unit  on  Jackson  Boulevard  as  a  lot  19  x 
19  feet,  56  feet  back  from  the  $6,000  unit  on  Jackson  Boulevard,  and 
a  small  L  in  the  lot  measuring  4  feet  \y2  inches  x  6  feet,  is  figured 
as  50  feet  back  from  Jackson  Boulevard.  The  total  value  is  $14,184. 

Lot  No.  16  takes  in  the  first  25  feet  of  the  $6,000-$5,000  Somers 
corner  table,  the  part  25  x  100  feet  being  worth  $333,846.  The 
smaller  part  of  the  lot  measuring  14.5  x  25  feet,  is  figured  as  an 
inside  lot  from  the  $6,000  unit  on  Jackson  Boulevard,  is  worth  $41,- 
673,  making  a  grand  total  of  $375,519. 

Lot  No.  15  takes  in  the  second  25  feet  of  the  corner  influence 
of  the  Wabash  Avenue  frontage,  and,  as  in  lot  No.  16,  there  is  a 
small  piece  in  the  rear  measuring  14.5  x  25  feet.  This,  however,  is 
figured  as  25  feet  back  from  the  $6,000  unit  on  Jackson  Boulevard. 
The  total  value  of  Lot  No.  15  is  $225,882. 

Lot  No.  14  takes  in  the  third  25  foot  frontage  on  Wabash 
Avenue  from  the  corner  of  Jackson  Boulevard,  and  is  within  the 
corner  influence  like  Lots  U5  and  16,  its  value  being  taken  directly 
from  the  Somers  corner  tables.  In  the  rear  of  this  lot  is  a  small 
extension  6  x  14.5  feet,  which  is  figured  from  the  $6,000  unit  on 
Jackson  Boulevard,  as  14.5  x  6  feet  at  a  distance  of  50  feet  from  the 
frontage.  The  value  of  Lot  No.  14  is  $162,294. 

Lot  No.  13  measures  54  x  171  feet.  Of  this  25  x  100  feet  ad¬ 
joining  Lot  No.  14  is  within  the  corner  influence,  and  <ts  in  the 

case  of  the  three  preceding  lots,  that  part  of  its  value  is  taken  from 
the  $6,000-$5,000  Somers  corner  table.  The  remainder  of  the  front¬ 
age  to  a  depth  of  100  feet  is  figured  as  an  inside  lot  from  the  $5,000 
unit  on  Wabash  Avenue  to  the  rear  of  this  part  of  the  lot,  and  that 
part  of  the  lot  within  the  corner  influence  is  a  rectangular  piece  of 
ground  71  x  54  feet.  It  is  figured  from  the  $6,000  unit  on  Jackson 

Boulevard  at  a  distance  of  75  feet  from  that  street,  as  described  in 

Lot  No.  2.  To  these  sums  must  be  added  54  feet  of  alley  frontage 
at  $347.45  per  foot,  making  a  grand  total  of  $393,335  for  the  lot. 

Lot  No.  12  is  a  purely  inside  lot,  and  is  figured  as  such  from 
the  $5,000  unit  on  Wabash  Avenue,  proper  addition  being  made  for 
alley  frontage.  Its  total  value  is  $166,804. 

Lot  No.  7  also  is  an  inside  lot  measuring  80  x  U71  feet,  and 


its  value,  $501,956,  is  calculated  in  the  same  manner  as  that  of  the 
other  inside  lots. 

The  same  method  is  followed  in  calculating  the  value  of  Lot 
No.  6,  which  is  worth  $195,500. 

Lot  No.  5  is  located  in  much  the  same  way  as  Lot  No.  11,  and 
the  same  methods  apply  in  computing  its  value,  which  amounts  to 
$315,330. 

Lot  No.  1  includes  the  first  80  squares  in  the  $5,000-$5,000 
Somers  corner  table  as  shown  from  the  units  on  Wabash  Avenue 
and  Adams  Street,  and  in  addition  to  this  there  is  71  feet  of  front¬ 
age  on  Adams  Street  and  a  depth  of  80  feet  which  is  figured  as  an 
inside  lot.  Proper  addition  is  also  made  for  the  alley.  The  total 
for  the  lot  is  $1,001,641. 

THE  FIRST  STEP  IN  THE  COMPUTATION  UNDER  THE 
SOMERS  SYSTEM. 

After  the  exercise  of  judgment  of  land  value  of  a  city  block  has 
been  completed  by  the  determination  of  the  value  of  each  unit  foot 
on  each  side  of  the  block,  the  first  step  in  the  computation  is  to 
ascertain  the  gross  land  value  of  the  block. 

By  the  use  of  the  mechanical  devices  and  mathematical  formulae 
prepared  by  Mr.  Somers  for  the  purpose,  the  extent  upon  the  block 
area  of  the  effect  of  every  unit  foot  value  is  ascertained;  the  block 
is  divided  up  into  areas,  each  area  according  to  the  exact  effect  of  a 
certain  unit  or  the  combination  of  certain  units.  None  of  this  effect 
is  left  to  judgment;  it  is  all  ascertained  scientifically,  mathematic¬ 
ally,  and  therefore  exactly. 

The  particular  object  of  this  computation  is  to  check  the  com¬ 
bined  values  of  the  lots  with  the  gross  value  ascertained  'by  this 
method.  In  this  way  the  amount  of  land  value  to  be  distributed  is 
ascertained  and  afterwards  the  combined  value  of  the  various  lots 
shows  whether  this  has  been  accurately  done  or  not. 

The  process  of  this  operation  upon  the  Chicago  block  under  dis¬ 
cussion  is  illustrated  in  Fig.  7,  a  description  of  which  is  as  follows: 

The  first  thing  to  do  is  to  ascertain  the  values  of  the  corner 
squares. 

By  referring  to  the  $5,000-$5,000  Somers  corner  table  we  find 
that  division  A  in  Fig.  7,  which  includes  the  whole  of  the  100-foot 
corner  square,  is  worth  $755,000. 

Division  B  in  the  $6,000-$5,000  Somers  corner  table  is  worth 
$833,028. 

Division  C  in  the  $1'2,000-$6,000  Somers  corner  table  is  worth 
$1,455,948. 

Division  D  in  the  $12,000-$5,000  Somers  corner  table  is  worth 
$1,420,848. 

Division  E  takes  in  portions  of  lots  1  and  5,  and  is  figured  from 
the  $5,000  unit  on  Adams  Street.  It  is  worth  $388,192. 

Division  F,  measuring  80  feet  x  171  feet,  is  figured  as  an  inside 
lot  from  the  $5,000  unit  on  Wabash  Avenue.  It  really  is  the  value 
of  lot  No.  7,  minus  alley  value.  It  is  worth  $474,160. 

Division  G  fronts  on  Wabash  Avenue  and  adjoins  the  corner 
square.  It  measures  26  feet  x  100  feet,  and  is  worth  $130,000. 

Division  H  is  the  first  150  feet  of  lot  No.  6,  and  is  worth  $195,500. 

Division  I  is  the  rear  part  of  lot  No.  6.  Instead  of  being  fig¬ 
ured  from  the  $5,000  unit  on  Wabash  Avenue,  it  is  figured  from  the 
$5,000  unit  on  Adams  Street,  because  its  value  really  comes  from  its 

26 


STATE  ST. 


ADAMS  ST. 

UN  IT  *  S  000 


h 

Z 

D 


© 

♦  1,4-20. 84-8 


(§) 

*162,762 


® 

♦  84. 000 


*3 

P 


TX 


*  a , 7 56 ,303 


© 

4  I  .  455,  94-8 


® 

# 

66  >»-80 


© 


4 

209.880 


© 


3  88.  132 


75S, 000 


(c)  *  13  O  .  000 


<\) 

/ 

1  135, 500 

® 

© 

*  4-74-  ,  1  60 

\4,  1  2  0 
<2 

4)4-3. 6 SO 

© 

© 


4 

4-69 , 4-3 S 


4  I  4-3  .060  © 


® 

<833. 628 


UN  IT<  fc  000 

JACKSON  BOUL. 

Fig.  7. 

Sample  Chicago  Block  Showing  Extent  of  Effect  of  Unit  Values. 


27 


UNIT  ^5000 

WABASH  AYE 


proximity  to  the  latter  street.  It  measures  21  feet  x  34  feet,  and  is 
worth  $7,822. 

Division  J  is  the  front  part  of  lot  No.  12;  it  measures  26  feet  x 
130  feet,  and  is  worth  $143,650. 

Division  K  is  the  rear  of  lot  No.  12,  and  is  figured  from  the 
$6,000  unit  on  Jackson  Boulevard  instead  of  the  $5,000  unit  on  Wa¬ 
bash  Avenue,  because  it  obtains  its  value  from  its  proximity  to  the 
former  street.  It  measures  41  feet  x  26  feet,  and  is  worth  $14,120. 

Division  L  is  the  front  part  of  lot  No.  13  outside  of  corner  in¬ 
fluence,  measuring  29  feet  x  100  feet,  and  is  worth  $145,000. 

Division  M  measures  71  feet  x  129  feet,  taking  in  those  parts  of 
lots  14,  15  and  16  that  are  outside  of  corner  influence,  the  rear  part 
of  lot  No.  13,  and  all  of  lots  Nos.  47,  18  and  19.  It  is  figured  just  as 
an  inside  lot  would  be  from  the  $6,000  unit  on  Jackson  Boulevard. 
It  is  worth  $469,495. 

Division  N  is  that  part  of  alley  falling  within  the  influence  of 
the  $6,000  unit  on  Jackson  Boulevard.  It  measures  18  feet  x  100 
feet,  and  is  worth  $108,000. 

Division  O  is  a  portion  of  lot  No.  20  and  is  figured  to  a  depth 
of  60  feet  from  the  $6,000  unit  on  Jackson  Boulevard.  It  adjoins  the 
corner  (division  C)  and  extends  71  feet  to  the  alley.  It  is  worth 
$209,880. 

Division  P  is  a  small  rectangle  in  the  rear  of  Division  O,  taking 
in  a  portion  of  lots  20  and  11.  It  measures  44  feet  x  40  feet,  and  is 
figured  from  the  $12,000  unit  on  State  Street;  it  is  worth  $66,480. 

Division  Q  includes  16  feet  10*4  inches  of  lot  No.  11,  all  of  lots 
10,  9,  8,  4  and  3,  with  part  of  the  alley  ;in  the  rear  of  these  lots.  It 
measures  19 6.1  feet  x  162  feet,  and  is  figured  from  the  $12,000  unit 
on  State  Street.  It  is  worth  $2,756,303. 

Division  R  is  a  part  of  lot  No.  2  outside  of  corner  square  at  a 
distance  of  50  feet  back  from  Adams  Street.  It  measures  44.9  feet  x 
50  feet,  and  is  figured  from  the  $12,000  unit  on  State  Street;  its 
value  is  $84,000. 

Division  S  is  a  part  of  lot  No.  2,  and  extends  from  the  corner 
square,  Division  D,  to  the  alley,  with  a  frontage  of  44.9  feet  on 
State  Street  and  a  depth  of  50  feet.  It  is.  worth  $162,762. 

Division  T  is  a  part  of  the  alley  within  the  influence  of  the 
$12,000  unit  on  State  Street,  beyond  the  influence  of  the  $5,000  unit 
on  Adams  Street.  It  measures  20  feet  x  18  feet,  and  is  worth  $7,872. 

Division  U  is  that  part  of  the  alley  within  the  influence  of  the 
$5,000  unit  in  Adams  Street.  It  measures  18  feet  x  80  feet,  and  is 
worth  $81,810. 

After  this  comparison  of  gross  and  combined  lot  values  has  been 
made,  the  particular  factors  of  value  or  detriment,  local  to  that  par¬ 
ticular  block  or  to  particular  lots  in  the  block,  must  be  determined, 
each  for  itself;  and  added  to  or  subtracted  from,  the  values  of  lots 
determined  by  calculation — sometimes  called  natural  land  value.  In 
this  way  all  natural  and  special  effects  of  value  are  considered. 

CONCLUSION. 

We  do  not  contend  that  the  lot  valuations  under  either  compu¬ 
tation  by  the  Somers  System  exhibit  the  exact  values  of  the  specific 
lots.  We  have  shown  conclusively  that  the  Chicago  figures  do  not 
— indeed  the  Chicago  department  admit  as  much  as  to  several  of 
the  lots.  We  may^  dismiss  all  of  these  lot  valuations  as  being  not 
the  actual  valuation  of  actual  lots,  but  rather  the  effect,  of  assumed 
units  as  measured  out  into  a  given  set  of  lot  lines.  This  block  has 
never  been  appraised  correctly.  That  is,  the  attempt  to  use  the  unit 

28 


system  without  knowing  what  its  effect  would  be,  produces  wrong 
expressions  of  judgment;  or  if  right,  there  is  little  to  show  its 

correctness,  and  therefore  we  can  have  no  confidence  in  the  result. 

The  discussion  of  the  theoretical  application  of  the  Chicago  Plan 
shows  its  inherent  weaknesses;  the  application  to  this  actual  block 
shows  many  of  its  absurdities;  and  whether  one  thinks  the  Somers 
tables  and  methods  produce  correct  results  or  not,  it  must  be  ad¬ 
mitted  by  any  impartial  investigator  that  the  Somers  System  results 
at  least  are  consistent  one  with  another,  and  that  they  work  as  well 
♦  under  one  condition  as  another,  and  are  not  susceptible  to  being 

criticised,  as  are  the  rules  employed  by  the  Chicago  assessing  depart¬ 
ment.  That  the  Chicago  Plan  is  better  than  no  plan  is  to  be  con¬ 
ceded;  that  it  is  better  than  is  used  by  any  other  city  in  the  United 

States,  except  those  cities  that  have  used  the  Somers  System,  has 
already  been  pointed  out;  and  we  believe  we  have  demonstrated  that 
it  is  so  far  from  perfect  that  Chicago  ought  to  change  it  for  a 
system  that  is  perfect,  if  such  a  one  can  be  found.  That  the 
Somers  System  is  as  nearly  perfect  as  it  is  possible  to  devise  a  plan 
for  measuring  out  man’s  judgment  of  intangible  values,  has  been 
conceded  by  students  of  the  subject  for  many  years.  It  has  been 
used  successfully  and  satisfactorily  in  two  large  cities,  and  is  about 
to  be  used  by  several  smaller  municipalities.  Its  cost  as  compared 
with  its  value  in  a  city  with  such  tremendous  values  and  changes 
in  values  as  are  shown  in  Chicago  real  estate,  is  so  insignificant  that 
it  is  scarcely  to  be  considered.  Chicago  has  made  so  great  an 
advance  over  other  cities  by  the  adoption  of  even  a  crude  system 
that  the  introduction  of  a  real,  exact  and  scientific  and  mathe¬ 
matically  correct  system  for  the  entire  city,  as  well  as  the  Loop 
district,  would  be  easier  in  proportion  to  the  task  in  hand,  than  in 
almost  any  other  city. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

MANUFACTURERS’  APPRAISAL  COMPANY. 

WALTER  W.  POLLOCK,  President. 

E.  W.  DOTY,  Manager  Tax  Valuation  Dept. 

W.  A.  SOMERS,  Land  Valuation  Attorney. 


29 


% 


f 


♦ 


Manufacturers’  Appraisal  Company 

Has  been  organized  for  twelve  years.  Its  business 
extends  throughout  the  United  States  and  Canada.  Its 
four  departments,  and  the  services  offered  by  each  de¬ 
partment,  are  as  follows: 

Tax  Valuation  Department 

Appraisals  of  Land  and  Buildings  for  equalizing  tax 
assessments  made  by  the  use  of  the  Somers  Unit  System 
of  Realty  Valuation,  for  Cities  or  States,  or  for  Investi¬ 
gating  Committees;  Cit^  Surveys  and  Plats  furnished. 

Industrial  Department 

Expert  valuations  of  Factories  of  every  description, 
Public  Service  Plants,  Railways,  Public  Buildings,  and 
other  Physical  Property;  such  appraisals  being  used  for 
distribution  of  insurance,  proof  of  fire  losses,  mergers, 
audits,  etc. 

Insurance  Reporting  Department 

Expert  legal  advice  on  all  questions  connected  with 
fire,  liability,  boiler  and  other  insurance;  reports  on  in¬ 
surance  companies,  preparation  of  rider  forms,  and  proof 
of  loss  after  a  fire. 

Home  and  Club  Inventory  Department 

Valuations  of  Home  and  Club  Furnishings  of  every 
description — useful  for  fire  and  burglary  insurance  pur¬ 
poses — or  just  to  know  what  your  home  contains. 


Manufacturers’  Appraisal  Company 


Walter  W.  Pollock 
W.  A.  Somers 
Charles  C.  Strawbriige 
Arthur  H.  Guild 
E.  W.  Doty 
John  West 


President  and  General  Manager 
Land  Valuation  Actuary 

-  -  -  Vice-Presidents 

Manager  Tax  Valuation  Department 
Secretary  and  Treasurer 


CLEVELAND  (Executive  Offices) 
Caxton  Building 

PHILADELPHIA: 

1072  Drexel  Building 

NEW  YORK: 

50  Pine  Street 


CHICAGO: 

Tribune  Building 

ST.  LOUIS: 

Merchants-Laclede  Building 

INDIANAPOLIS: 

American  Central  Life  Building 


